‘Catholics’ for Choice put belief in condoms on level with belief in God

By Deacon Nick Donnelly, on May 27th, 2011

On the eve of the Vatican conference on the morality and effectiveness of condoms in response to HIV/AIDS the pro-abortion group ‘Catholics’ for Choice have issued a ‘creed’ that puts belief in condoms on the same level as belief in God:

‘We believe in God.

We believe that sex is sacred.

We believe in caring for each other.

We believe in using condoms.

We thank Pope Benedict for acknowledging that condoms save lives.’

In a press release issued with this advert in an Italian newspaper Jon O’Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice, mischievously attempts to portray Pope Benedict XVI as supporting the use of condoms:

‘”The first ray of light from the Vatican came from Pope Benedict XVI himself last year when he acknowledged that condom use can prevent the spread of the disease. Since then, conservatives within the church have worked to try and muddy this clarity, but Catholic health workers must resist their attempts to roll back progress and endanger the lives and health of millions of people at risk for contracting HIV and AIDS. No longer can the Vatican stand by dangerous statements of men like Cardinal Trujillo, who claimed that HIV could pass through a condom.”

In his interview with Peter Seewald published in Light of the World Pope Benedict said that the use of condoms was always immoral and less than human. He did say that a homosexual prostitute considering using a condom to stop the spread of HIV was the beginning of moral reasoning. This example was clearly not an endorsement by the Holy Father of the use of condoms as moral.

Protect the Pope comment: This ‘credal’ statement from ‘Catholics for Choice’ captures the depth of dissent that they, and their supporters, have sunk. The God they believe in is a ‘god’ created by them in their own image, and is not the God of Jesus Christ and apostolic faith.

Their statement of belief in the sacredness of sex is impoverished and debased, for it makes no mention of love, nor does it distinguish between the moral sexual love between wives and husbands, and the immorality of sex outside of marriage.

They say they believe in caring for each other but this care does not include pre-born children, who they actively seek to kill.

Their pressing Pope Benedict into supporting their position is intentionally misleading and mendacious.

That ‘Catholics for Choice’ call opposition to the use of condoms ‘dissent’ is not only absurd, but also a diabolical twisting of the truth.

To raise the use of condoms onto the same level as belief in God is a gross act of heresy and apostasy. When will the Church take legal action to stop this anti-catholic organisation that is funded by enemies of the Church from passing itself off as ‘Catholic’?

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops have said, “[CFC] is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB.”

La Repubblica celebrates the referendum which has introduced divorce in Malta.
It even accuses the Maltese Church of having done “moral terrorism” and of being hand in hand with the economic power. It’s disgusting that a newspaper which is published by one of Italy’s richest and fishiest Man (Mr De Benedetti )
always accuses the Church of being hand in hand with the economic power.
Come on, we all now that abortion is a big business for some, condoms are also a big business as many of questionable scientific practices opposed by the Church.
So, what economic power does the Church defend?
What about the papal enciclica which strongly condemned the gap between south and north of the world?
What is revolting and disgusting is that newspapers like the New York times and, on a smaller case La Repubblica, are the economic establishment even though gullibles believe they criticize it. No, they are the economic establishment, they are hand in hand with economic power, and yet the decry the Church, whose only power is the hard work of hard and women who are never in the spotlight ,and of course prayer.

God has given us free will, we have no right to ban birth control or divorce, no government or religion should take this away from us.. Proverty will only end with the emancipation of women,and worldwide use of contraception. We should all be standing up to support this fundamental right. As over-population is destroying our planet, how critical does it have to get before people get change in doctrine. God is power, our voices will be heard. SHOUT at the church to change harmful Catholic doctrine against birth control. For inspiration read David Attenburgh’s article on over population, in The New Statesman.

It is a shame that we don’t get any liberal catholics (or “catholics”) if you prefer posting here. If it is only the staunch proper Catholics and the atheists posting here there is a danger that the views of those in the middle (which we are lead to believe are very common) are ignored.

I can’t believe that there isn’t at least one contraception-using person who regards themselves as a member of the Catholci church who is reading this. I wish such people wheren’t so shy.

I have no idea about numbers, I think it would be impossible to guess.

We have discussed this before, there is no such thing as a liberal Caholic or a right wing Catholic or a conservative Catholic, you either are a Catholic and abide by the teachings of the Church you or you not. But there is no in the middle.

Of course the teachings of the Church have developed over 2,000 years. Go read Blessed John Henry Newman’s ‘Development of Doctrine’. They have not developed in contradictory ways, but reflect the Church’s growing understanding of the meaning and significance of Jesus’ teaching, guided by the Holy Spirit.

My point about slavery was that the RC church has had several changes of tack [so far as I can see] over the last 1500 years. So, who were the ‘real’ catholics during times of change? Were they:

* the ones who held the party line no matter what the change was [call them weathercocks for the sake of discussion]
* the ones who supported [say] slavery when the line was that slavery was ‘bad’
* the ones who supported no slavery when slavery was ‘good’
* the churchmen who supported slavery [and didn't believe in it] because the ‘money men’ liked it?

‘Of course the teachings of the Church have developed over 2,000 years. Go read Blessed John Henry Newman’s ‘Development of Doctrine’. They have not developed in contradictory ways, but reflect the Church’s growing understanding of the meaning and significance of Jesus’ teaching, guided by the Holy Spirit.’

Or maybe they were developed by people who reflected human nantue and the times they lived in….

Or maybe they were developed by people who reflected human nantue and the times they lived in…

That is part of it too. The Church is part of history and reacts to cultural, scientific and human developments, drawing on the faith handed down to us from the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through prayer, liturgy, and rational reflection.

Thanks Nick. My eye was on ‘there is no such thing as a liberal Caholic or a right wing Catholic or a conservative Catholic, you either are a Catholic and abide by the teachings of the Church you or you not. But there is no in the middle.’

Given that even in the RC church, things change; surely its a logical impossibility to always ‘abide by the teachings of the church’?

I undertand your possition that people who are partly catholic cannot accurately be called catholic. But that isn’t the same as saying that such people do not exist. They most certainly do exist. In fact probably most people in the country are more religious than say me and Pedro and less religious than say You and Louella. The middle ground is in the majority whatever label you want to attach to them and it is a shame that we don’t hear their voices on this site. It bothers me that all too often the discussion becomes a debate between two extreme positions with no contribution from teh middle.

Karla, the Church disagrees with you. The Church considers them Catholics, just as it considers even the excommunicated still Catholics. Ironically if you dissent on this teaching, you are putting yourself in the same category.

People are allowed their God-given free will, even if that means they don’t follow every single Catholic teaching down to the letter. The Church recognizes this. “Catholics for Choice” is really a group of people who identify strongly with the Church but dissent on a very important issue. Why they made a group, I don’t know–they’ll never get the Church to say it’s ok to have an abortion.

Nevertheless, they are still part of our family as all who are baptized into the Christian faith. When talking about such groups, it’s always important to focus on two aspects:

1) Some beliefs espoused by the group are contrary to the Catholic faith.
2) Groups that call themselves Catholic do not necessarily represent the Church.

“Of course the teachings of the Church have developed over 2,000 years. Go read Blessed John Henry Newman’s ‘Development of Doctrine’. They have not developed in contradictory ways”

That is such an outright lie it is hardly worth exposing.
For example does the church still believe in the Papal Bull inciting everyone
to overthrow Queen Elizabeth I…? which is presumably still valid and a Papal and Magesterial document. Hard to find it on their website however.
Are we still supposed to take Sergius III’s words at face value – given he was clinically insane?
Doesn’t the investiture crisis sound like a load of fuss about nothing these days…?

The church has constantly changed its views of doctrine on a myriad of issues.
What it did was declare its self infallible when its temporal power waned
and then attempted to retroactively pick and choose which bits of doctrine that
were and were not official from a fixed point in time (1870).
This is a device known in fiction as a reboot.
However, it is a trick you can only pull off once.
You cant pick two points in time from which you’re infallible – therefore anything it decides post-1870 it is stuck with eternally unless it can use sophistry to alter its position as it did on condoms.

Since it attempted to invent new doctrine on sexual ethics in 1968 and impose it on everyone as though it had always been the cornerstone of Catholicism it has to force it down everyone’s throats despite the fact that people know it is nonsense.
Unfortunately it wasn’t always doctrine and the past would seem to contradict some modern doctrine and you cannot delete this reality as unfortunately some people have memories.
I have many relatives who started going to mass who remember what happened in 1968 and how doctrine changed – you cannot tell them with a straight face that this was always official church teaching that stretches back to Peter. Because it was not and they remember this. Maybe when they are dead you will be able to swing that one.

Obvious examples:
The Catholic church’s modern doctrine on the role of the ordained in politics is, for example, is direct contravention to how it had behaved and what it taught for at least 1900 years of its history. What about the Irish form of the Catechism which said that Papal Infallibity was a protestant heresy or Pope John XXII’s explicit statements that a pope can sin when pronouncing on doctrine? These are direct contradictions to the idea that doctrinal development is simply a large monolithic structure where the new ideas arise from solid foundations and the sum of doctrine just gets naturally higher in a one dimensional way without any sidewards developments or contradictions.

I don’t appreciate being called a liar on my own website. Elizabeth the I is dead so that Papal Bull is hardly relevant is it. You seem to lump all statements and actions made by the Church as doctrine. They are not. Maybe before mouthing off you should find out what doctrine is

“Since it attempted to invent new doctrine on sexual ethics in 1968 and impose it on everyone as though it had always been the cornerstone of Catholicism it has to force it down everyone’s throats despite the fact that people know it is nonsense.”

The new doctrine was not contrary to the past in the way you’d like it to be though. Instead the Church fathers like St. Augustine, coming from a stoic philosophy, strongly implied that any use of sex that did not intend to procreate was sinful. The fact that the Church let up and allowed NFP is definitely not the kind of imposition you’re implying.

In light of the fact that the Church’s beliefs on sex are still based largely on what I consider to be a medieval understanding of biology, the teachings specified starting with Pius XI (Casti Connubii) have been slightly toward the progressive.

I have many ancesters who would be extremely interested to learn that there was nothing doctrinal about the Bull against Elizabeth I which made being a Catholic for a short time inseparable from a duty to undermine the state. Leading to a state of affairs that was not corrected until Catholic Emancipation. The Catholic Church has never said sorry for this bull which exacerbated sectarian conflicts for well over 300 years.

The idea that all official doctrine is one giant column of thought that continues in a single undiverted path which was only define formally in 1870 is nonsense. I find it impossible to logically reconcile that prior to this date there was no doctrine which has since been changed or abandoned by the Church was taught with equivalent authority to the faithful.

Simply stating long after the event that actually that authority so majestically boasted of at the time was, with the wisdom of hindsight and investigation, not actually there is somewhat absurd after the fact of someone having exercised that authority.
Therefore I have reached the conclusion that this is because it is nonsense.

“Elizabeth the I is dead so that Papal Bull is hardly relevant is it”

But it is – many of the Magisterial documents you are fond of quoting have little more or less authority than many of the documents that today the church wishes us to forget that it issued. Readers at the time I’m sure would be greatly enlightened to learn that retrospectively it was not meant to be taken that seriously and was not a doctrinal matter.

Interestingly although Jesus told Peter he had authority to define doctrine he never said anything about Peter not being able to change his mind on any subject so I am at a loss as to know where this particular idea that doctrine can never change comes from.

The most hard to argue against change in church doctrine is the document Nostra Aetate which is very hard to read without noticing that it is somewhat different to what was previously church doctrine in the area of Jewish relations. The extreme right wing of the church is always fast to drag this up as an example of retroactive continuity and while I would not condone their motivations or wish the document in any way retracted …

Anthony, have the courtesy to apologise for calling me a liar. If you haven’t got the decency to do so this is your last post on Protect the Pope. I will not tolerate personal abuse on this website. Deacon Nick Donnelly

“Of course the teachings of the Church have developed over 2,000 years. Go read Blessed John Henry Newman’s ‘Development of Doctrine’. They have not developed in contradictory ways”

Nick, I believe this statement is simply not true and I cannot comprehend how anyone can make it so in their mind. However, I am prepared to believe that in your mind you genuinely believe it to be true in the teeth of all the evidence.

It is clear that Doctrine has over 2000 years developed in contradictory ways both within and outside the church. What the church did was clarify which doctrines were and were not “official” doctrines retroactively.

There is clear an unequivocal proof that the Catholic Church contradicts its self in some areas of doctrine. It would be more or less impossible for this not to be the case unless everyone completely perfectly understood everyone else all the time and did not have conflicting ideas and this would not be human.

Furthermore I do not think Blessed John Henry Newman’s ‘Development of Doctrine’ means that all doctrines promoted but the church are equally valid but that there is an accumulation of doctrine that forms in some way a continum and at the fringes of this continum are the heresies – some of which have never been condemned as such because no one’s yet realised them. And some of them have not been condemned because they’ve just been thought up. And some because they’re so technical frankly no one’s interested.

Also I do not understand
Why do you want me to appologise for calling you a liar on
June 7, 2011 at 9:58 am
When you could have asked me to appologise for calling you a liar on
June 6, 2011 at 12:56 pm?
Why have you become more offended in the previous 20 hours?

I must admit to being slightly amused that you think that being banned from things is a new and exiting experience for me. I’ve been banned by lots of people. There’s plenty more space left on the world wide web begging me to fill it with vapid waffle.

Actually what I said was that IT is a lie.
Rather than that YOU are a liar.
There is a small but subtle distinction.
You could be quoting someone else without having thought about the provenance of the statement and thereby disseminating something untrue unintentionally.
It is perfectly possible to disseminate lies without having any personal intention to decieve that constitutes being a liar yourself.
Or to perpetrate untruths without being able to accept that that is what they are.
Watch Judge Judy and you will see a procession of people who are convinced they are right in the teeth of all the evidence that they are taking nonsense.

If you still feel deeply slighted I will rephrase my comment by saying that I believe strongly that what you said is not true.
I do not know quite what one calls a statement that is obviously not true but not necessarily a lie but I will borrow a word from Judge Judy:
“Baloney!”